NORTH COUNTY METRO June 20, 2012

NC38, NC41, and NC48

Existing GP Designation(s) SR2 Workplan Designations Evaluated SR1

Requestor(s) Position: Support workplan designation CPG Position Oppose

Area (acres): 79.6 Opposition Expected Yes

# of parcels: 8 # of Additional Dwelling Units 40

Complexity Medium Discussion: This is a collection of properties adjacent to the City of San Marcos. All requests totaling nearly 80 acres were the same and are therefore grouped together. The change to SR1 would result in an overall increase yield of 40 dwelling units. The Twin Oaks CSG voted to oppose the change to SR1 based on review of maps showing the development constraints on the properties. The CSG originally voted to support these requests in October 2010, but they voted to reconsider and then recommended denial after they reviewed floodplain and prime agricultural land maps(see attached).

Existing General Plan Designations:

Workplan Designation(s) Evaluated:

NORTH COUNTY METRO June 20, 2012

NC38, NC41, and NC48

Rationale for Medium Complexity Classification:

FEMA mapping shows that floodways and floodplains exist over some of the properties. The owners have claimed that the floodway has been channelized and therefore development will have no impact. County maps appear to agree with this assessment, however, development would be held to the FEMA map standard. In accordance with section 811.302 of the County’s Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, when there is a conflict between the County and FEMA floodplain/floodway maps, the more stringent of restrictions shall prevail and be deemed to govern.

The majority of the land covered by these property specific requests is considered Prime Agricultural Land. Increasing the subdivision potential for agricultural lands would likely reduce future agricultural operations.

Portions of the study area contain Sycamore and Oak Woodlands, which would likely be preserved through the subdivision process.

The most intensive designation evaluated on the in the study area during the referral process was SR2. A change to this designation would require additional study not previously undertaken during the General Plan Update process.

The addition of 40 dwelling units in a small area will have an impact on the character of the Twin Oaks community, especially considering that most of the adjacent lots in the unincorporated area are significantly larger than one acre. However, the requests are adjacent to more intensive designations within the City of San Marcos.

Lot Size Map

For Additional Information (January 9, 2012 Staff Reports): NC38, NC41, NC48

NORTH COUNTY METRO June 20, 2012

NC38, NC41, and NC48

Property Constraints

FEMA Floodway and 100 Year Floodplain

Prime Agricultural Land

NORTH COUNTY METRO June 20, 2012

NC38, NC41, and NC48

Property Constraints

Habitat Evaluation Model

I Civic Ceuter Drive

San Marcos, C A 92069 -29 I 8

January 12,2012

Mr. Eric GibsonDirector of Planning & Land Use

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO5201 Ruffin Road, Suite BSan Diego, CA92123

RE: GENERAL PLAN UPDATE05, & 10

Tclcphonc(760) 744-t050

/..T (í) lelllVlE

JAt\l 1 7 Ztn

,,uuo

T lilifrLl. prANN

I N c

- YASUKOCHI PROPERTY - NC38 APN 182-076.04,

/Ð//l/

Dear Mr. Gibson:

It is my understanding that the County of San Diego is considering an SR-l Designation for the

Yasukóchi property located on Olive Avenue in the Twin Oaks Valley area of San Marcos.

This letter will serve to register my support for the SR-l Designation for Yasukochi property.

If you should have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

_:_/_.^/*/'

Jim DesmondMayor, San Marcos

cc: Bill Horn - 5th District Supervisor

Minutes: January 19, 2011 meeting of the TWIN OAKS VALLEY COMMUNITY SPONSOR GROUP

Agenda Item 6: 3300-04-008-02(P04-008W1) Major Use Permit Modification at Esplendido Ave Cell Tower: Expansion of existing cell tower equipment cabinet located at 2141 Esplendido Ave requiring expanding existing cabinet. Mr. Franklin Orozco, Interlink Planning Group represented the applicant. This project is replacing existing antennas on an existing tower and expanding the ground support structure. Farrell indicated that she had driven past the site and commented that the existing ground equipment structure is too close to the road and ugly, she felt that any proposed expansion of the structure should be with enhanced landscaping and if possible reduction of the wall surface. Neighbor residents to the site do not want any additional noise coming from the ground equipment, especially at night. Also residents expressed concern about the radiated power coming from the increased antennas, and that some sort of mitigation should be provided to protect people at ground level. After discussion the applicant was asked to return to a future meeting with specific information concerning the noise issue, and that a project be designed to not increase noise beyond what is now existing from the ground equipment, and to also consider enhanced landscaping or reduction of the ground equipment structure size. Agenda Item 7 : Nomination for Membership and Reappointment of Members: Nominations for membership may be solicited from the community-at-large, by planning staff, and/or the staff of a Supervisor’s office. Each member must be at least 18 years of age, a registered voter, live in and /or be property owners of the community, and be appointed by the Board of Supervisors. New members cannot participate as a group member until the BOS appointment has taken place. A full term of service is four (4) Years. Farrell asked if all affected attending members are willing to be reappointed, and each individually answered yes. As Palmer was not in attendance, Farrell is to contact him to determine his desire to be reappointed. Agenda Item 8: General Plan Update (was GP-2020): Review of six property specific requests that were submitted to the Board of Supervisors. Property owners of these properties are requesting a different density then what has been proposed as Staff recommendation under the General Plan update and represents approximately 200 acres. Each individual affected property was reviewed and action taken as follows: a) NC22, Vista San Marcos LTD (Kubba Property)- Farrell and Kumara recused themselves from the discussion. Jemmott indicated that previously the Sponsor Group had opposed this project and in general the feelings expressed were that the amount of density being considered is inappropriate for the property. A time of line of events was discussed and a document was distributed outlining the various events going back to October 1978 through July 2006 when the San Marcos City Council voted to not give the San Marcos Tentative Map an extension and the project expired. Jemmott also provided copies of letter written by the Sponsor Group dated February 5, 2002 to San Diego County DPLU raising issues which should cause the project to be rejected. And finally a letter dated April 8, 2005 from the District Engineer of the US Army Corps of

Minutes: January 19, 2011 meeting of the TWIN OAKS VALLEY COMMUNITY SPONSOR GROUP

Engineers to Mr. Robert Smith of the US Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service providing recommendations that the annexation not proceed until an approved NC MSCP has been adopted for the area. Copies of the various documents were requested to be part of the minutes. Due to the two members recusing themselves no vote was taken on this issue. Farrell and Kumura returned to the Sponsor Group after the vote. b) NC37, John Driessen: Following a discussion of how the requested change from SR10 to SR4 would create an SR4 parcel in an SR10 area which appeared incompatible, Farrell moved to support staff recommendation for the SR10 designation. Morris seconded the motion and it passed 5-0-0. c) NC38, Yasukochi Family Trust: After reviewing the County supplied documents showing the parcel had a significant area within a flood plain, of high habitat, and since all of the property was viewed by the County to have Prime Agricultural Lands, Morris moved to support the staff position. Jemmott seconded and the motion passed 5-0-0. d) NC39, Tomlison Trust: After review of County supplied documents showing the property had a significant area of steep slopes, greater than 25%, and an indication of wetlands on site, Farrell moved to support staff recommendation, Jemmott seconded the motion and it passed 5-0-0. e) NC41, Kent Property: Because this parcel is bordered by SR2 on three sides, and according to County supplied models showing the sight to have high habitat value and consisted of Prime Agricultural Lands and other designations showing the land to be of agricultural value Morris moved to support staff recommendation, Kumura seconded the motion and it passed 5-0-0. f) NC42 Merriam Mountains, Binns recused herself: The County did not supply any maps to support either County designation or applicant’s request. However, the Sponsor Group has responded to past project for the site and requested for any additional density in a consistent manner and match existing community character. Farrell made a motion that the property should be returned to the pre-Merriam Mountains project density (under current General Plan zoning), Jemmott seconded the motion, but requested an amendment to the motion that there would be no clustering allowed. Farrell accepted the change. Kumura seconded the amendment, the vote was 4-0-0 approved. Binns returned to the Group after the vote. Agenda Item 9: Community Plan Update: Update from County on status. Farrell indicated that we would have no further activities on this matter until after the Board of Supervisors vote. Agenda Item 10: Equine Policy and Ordinance: County is currently working on policies and ordinances related to keeping horses both for personal use, boarding and public stables. Morris reported that he had attended the only meeting, which had occurred at DPLU in November 5, 2010. He provided information as to the creation of the group representing many Sponsor Groups as well as Planning Groups from the

1

Johnston, Kevin

From: Veronica L.Moore [mailto:veronical@dslextreme.com] Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 8:22 AM To: Citrano, Robert Cc: SLFarrell@Cox.net Subject: Lot split Anthony PD'Elia & Rita M.D'Elia Parcel# 187-570-09-00 We are opposing any lot splits in our area. We purchased here for the tranquility and peaceful nature of this area. We paid very heavily for our roads-being sued twice by our neighbor Henry Palmer even tho we had the roads done by Joes' Paving Co. Our roads are not built for 2 cars in passing. We do not want any 1 acre lot splits ever. We want to go on record about this.

Johnston, Kevin

----- Original Message ----- From: Patty Morton To: Sandra Farrell Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 6:21 AM Subject: Letter regarding NC-48 Hi Sandra- Please include this letter regarding NC-48 that I wrote last April and send to the County if you haven't already. Thanks, Patty ----- Original Message ----- From: Sandra Farrell To: Patty Morton Cc: slfarrell@cox.net Sent: Friday, April 22, 2011 2:43 PM Subject: Re: Last nights meeting Thank you Patty for your comments. The group did take a vote but when I put the motion and documents togther to send to the County this weekend, I'll make sure to include your comments so that they become part of public record. I'll copy you on what I send in. Sandra

On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Patty Morton <patty@pathfinderfarm.com> wrote: Hi Sandra, I have some concerns with the Sponsor Group rescinding the SR2 recommendation for the NC-48 area. Mr. Palmer has raised issues with a horse property in this area that " wants to stable 27 horses in a water shed area". If this area is prone to water run off problems then should density be doubled? I have questions in regards to traffic circulation in this neighborhood. The heavy Greenhouse/ Ag. use with no requirement to improve the roads, makes traffic in this neighborhood hazardous for residents. Future planning of pathways in this area that enable people to circulate safely and access existing Trails and Parks is crucial. The Sponsor Group has been vigilant in preserving the quality of life in our Valley. I request that you keep the recommendation of SR2 for NC-48 and continue to work with the County on fair and reasonable ways of working with Horse and Agricultural properties so they are good neighbors now and in the future. Sincerely, Patty Morton